to the no voters, even if QC security is ultimately a boondoggle that is not really needed ... if we hold blocks at 1mb and there are many 100x as large transactions moving utxos to be quantum secure how does not get us to a much much better place?
Avg. Fees vs. Reward 0.51% (source clarkmoody dashboard)
If this continues for a few more halvings eventually miners will be making 1/200th of what they currently make in sats and the purchasing power of bitcoin can grow a lot but it can't grow to infinity.
security budget issue is sometimes abused by scammers to advance PR (paul storcz guilty imho) but nevertheless is a legitimate concern imho.
If this continues for a few more halvings eventually miners will be making 1/200th of what they currently make in sats and the purchasing power of bitcoin can grow a lot but it can't grow to infinity.
"A few more" as in: 8 halvings. Or approximately 32 years.
You are insinuating that energy prices (in sats) will not reduce in tandem or more with block rewards over time. I'm having a lot of trouble following your math when comparing it to the past developments. Care to expand?
we can't predict energy prices in sats. So far the trend has been always down but it will top out eventually. Even with 1mm usd / bitcoin that is less than 20x current price and that is erased in 4 halvings, 16 years.
The sustainable future is about transaction fees. not block subsidy.
Once the market figures the fees are never coming, it might not wait 16 years to watch it play out.
I agree that it seems like if miners aren't making very much from fees, so hashrate will decrease as the subsidy goes down or there will need to be an increase of miners who are willing to mine at a loss (eg heatpunks, or people who are politically motivated, or perhaps stranded energy).
But I think it is not a benefit of quantum resistant signatures that they are larger. As I said in our other thread (#1463880):
I think bitcoin should aim for the maximum throughput of transactions constrained only by security and ease of ability to run a node. if there's "too much" blockspace and miners aren't making enough, that seems to be a sign of weak interest in Bitcoin. I don't think that gets fixed by making transactions bigger.
to the no voters, even if QC security is ultimately a boondoggle that is not really needed ... if we hold blocks at 1mb and there are many 100x as large transactions moving utxos to be quantum secure how does not get us to a much much better place?
discussion with @Scoresby at
#1463880
You frame it as though Bitcoin's security budget is currently broken
Avg. Fees vs. Reward 0.51%
(source clarkmoody dashboard)
If this continues for a few more halvings eventually miners will be making 1/200th of what they currently make in sats and the purchasing power of bitcoin can grow a lot but it can't grow to infinity.
security budget issue is sometimes abused by scammers to advance PR (paul storcz guilty imho) but nevertheless is a legitimate concern imho.
"A few more" as in: 8 halvings. Or approximately 32 years.
You are insinuating that energy prices (in sats) will not reduce in tandem or more with block rewards over time.
I'm having a lot of trouble following your math when comparing it to the past developments. Care to expand?
we can't predict energy prices in sats. So far the trend has been always down but it will top out eventually. Even with 1mm usd / bitcoin that is less than 20x current price and that is erased in 4 halvings, 16 years.
The sustainable future is about transaction fees. not block subsidy.
Once the market figures the fees are never coming, it might not wait 16 years to watch it play out.
Yet here you are predicting it won't change enough despite all existing evidence indicating that it has, plus a hefty margin.
Then let's count ourselves lucky that "the market" has been too stupid to have figured that guaranteed outcome yet.
And yet the network is still near 1 ZH/s...
I agree that it seems like if miners aren't making very much from fees, so hashrate will decrease as the subsidy goes down or there will need to be an increase of miners who are willing to mine at a loss (eg heatpunks, or people who are politically motivated, or perhaps stranded energy).
But I think it is not a benefit of quantum resistant signatures that they are larger. As I said in our other thread (#1463880):
I think bitcoin should aim for the maximum throughput of transactions constrained only by security and ease of ability to run a node. if there's "too much" blockspace and miners aren't making enough, that seems to be a sign of weak interest in Bitcoin. I don't think that gets fixed by making transactions bigger.
Good poll question, though!
@Scoresby
@DarthCoin